DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> McCain Ads
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 358, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/27/2008 05:52:18 PM · #101
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


I wouldn't say I was a one issue voter.. it's just that this is an important social issue. I wouldn't say that it is the most important issue. That would be national security because regardless of whether or not abortion is legal I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.


So I suppose, then, if in your opinion national security is the most important issue, that you're frightened by and disappointed with the way the Bush administration handled all the warning signals pre-9/11 -- that is, to ignore all the alarms and treat with derision anyone who tried to warn him? And I suppose you're also outraged over the fact that Bush allowed bin Laden to escape, and then excused this failure by claiming that bin Laden was no longer a threat, while at the same time advancing the false argument that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was the real threat, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

And yet you're going to vote for a man who supported Bush and his administration in every one of these falsehoods and incompetent acts?

It boggles the mind...


What about Bill clinton. He could have taken Bin Laden out and chose not to. I don't think you can blame Bush for 911 like you seem to be doing and while I do not support the decision to go to war in iraq I don't think it was entirely unreasonable considering that the entire international community agreed that he had weapons of mass destruction and the congress authorized him to take action if necessary. We can never know the amount by which things were exaggerated or by whom. I do know that there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 911 and for this I give Bush an a+.


You're wrong about Clinton. Without looking up the facts and off the top of my head, I seem to recall at least one missile attack that the Clinton administration launched against bin Laden, and according to all the testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was "obsessed" with bin Laden, held briefings on his activities and whereabouts every day, and according to Tenet, the head of the CIA at the time, "harassed" that agency daily for intelligence on opportunities to strike.

Compare that to Bush's record of remaining on vacation for the entire month of August 2001, even after George Tenet sent an underling to his ranch to deliver the now-famous Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." along with other warnings about an imminent attack on U.S. soil. What did Bush do? Dismissed the news and the emissary with the reply, "All right, you've covered your ass now," or words to that effect.

There is a difference between one who is vigilant and acts in a reasonably responsible manner under such circumstances, and fails, and one who fails due to wanton recklessness and negligence. I'm not blaming Bush in the sense that I think he planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11, but I certainly think he should be held accountable for his failure to even pay attention, let alone take any action before 9/11.

And since you did not support going to war in Iraq, then why do you support the candidate whose judgment was wrong on an issue that is most important to you?

By the way, Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction in and of itself should not have been the deciding factor in whether we invaded that country. Why do you think that, in spite of the international community believing Hussein had such weapons, the international community on the whole did not support our war with Iraq?
08/27/2008 06:10:15 PM · #102
Originally posted by dponlyme:

...To answer your question, yes I do think the actions of the administration have made this country safer. There haven't been any more terrorist attacks on our soil. I think the actions of the administration in regards to wiretapping and other homeland security measures have been appropriate considering the circumstances.


So just a question from the uninformed mass: how many attacks where there before 9/11? besides pearl harbor?

ETA: to clarify I mean attacks by Terrorists?

and to further weed it out how many attacks have been carryed out on american soil that weren't by a group at one point funded by the US government?

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 18:12:17.
08/27/2008 06:38:19 PM · #103
Originally posted by Eyesup:

and to further weed it out how many attacks have been carryed out on american soil that weren't by a group at one point funded by the US government?


(within the United States or against Americans abroad)

1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

19821991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.

June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.

Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.

April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 2931, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 1119, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.

2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.

Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

2008
June 24, Iraq: A suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 18:38:55.
08/27/2008 06:52:28 PM · #104
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by dponlyme:


I wouldn't say I was a one issue voter.. it's just that this is an important social issue. I wouldn't say that it is the most important issue. That would be national security because regardless of whether or not abortion is legal I don't want terrorists to kill our citizens and damage our economy the way it happened on 911.


So I suppose, then, if in your opinion national security is the most important issue, that you're frightened by and disappointed with the way the Bush administration handled all the warning signals pre-9/11 -- that is, to ignore all the alarms and treat with derision anyone who tried to warn him? And I suppose you're also outraged over the fact that Bush allowed bin Laden to escape, and then excused this failure by claiming that bin Laden was no longer a threat, while at the same time advancing the false argument that Iraq/Saddam Hussein was the real threat, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11?

And yet you're going to vote for a man who supported Bush and his administration in every one of these falsehoods and incompetent acts?

It boggles the mind...


What about Bill clinton. He could have taken Bin Laden out and chose not to. I don't think you can blame Bush for 911 like you seem to be doing and while I do not support the decision to go to war in iraq I don't think it was entirely unreasonable considering that the entire international community agreed that he had weapons of mass destruction and the congress authorized him to take action if necessary. We can never know the amount by which things were exaggerated or by whom. I do know that there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since 911 and for this I give Bush an a+.


You're wrong about Clinton. Without looking up the facts and off the top of my head, I seem to recall at least one missile attack that the Clinton administration launched against bin Laden, and according to all the testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was "obsessed" with bin Laden, held briefings on his activities and whereabouts every day, and according to Tenet, the head of the CIA at the time, "harassed" that agency daily for intelligence on opportunities to strike.

Compare that to Bush's record of remaining on vacation for the entire month of August 2001, even after George Tenet sent an underling to his ranch to deliver the now-famous Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." along with other warnings about an imminent attack on U.S. soil. What did Bush do? Dismissed the news and the emissary with the reply, "All right, you've covered your ass now," or words to that effect.

There is a difference between one who is vigilant and acts in a reasonably responsible manner under such circumstances, and fails, and one who fails due to wanton recklessness and negligence. I'm not blaming Bush in the sense that I think he planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11, but I certainly think he should be held accountable for his failure to even pay attention, let alone take any action before 9/11.

And since you did not support going to war in Iraq, then why do you support the candidate whose judgment was wrong on an issue that is most important to you?

By the way, Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction in and of itself should not have been the deciding factor in whether we invaded that country. Why do you think that, in spite of the international community believing Hussein had such weapons, the international community on the whole did not support our war with Iraq?


Clinton could have possibly killed him read here----> //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ He wanted to take him alive however.

Nearly everyone's judgement was wrong in regards to the issue. As I've stated before, given the 'intelligence' it seemed like the right decision and that is why most were wrong including McCain. That does not mean he is not a good pick for president.

Notably the French did not support it because they were reaping huge benefits from saddam. I also would point out that there were a lot of countries who were in agreement with us.

08/27/2008 07:18:06 PM · #105
Originally posted by dponlyme:



Clinton could have possibly killed him read here----> //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ He wanted to take him alive however.

Nearly everyone's judgement was wrong in regards to the issue. As I've stated before, given the 'intelligence' it seemed like the right decision and that is why most were wrong including McCain. That does not mean he is not a good pick for president.

Notably the French did not support it because they were reaping huge benefits from saddam. I also would point out that there were a lot of countries who were in agreement with us.


Do you honestly believe that if anyone else had been president beside GW Bush (Republican or Democrat) that they would have chosen to invade Iraq?

Do you not believe the several eye witness accounts that GW twisted the information to justify the invasion and that any other responsible human would have been a bit more prudent before sending our soldiers to certain death? He was looking for reason to invade Iraq regardless of the facts.

What about the treasonous acts by the vice president and his cronies in outing a CIA operative to discredit anyone who tried to challenge the "facts" being presented to the US by their president? Not to mention the promise of the president to root out anyone involved and hold them accountable. Then, the only person convicted on the matter had his sentence commuted by GW? And don't forget the ancillary benefit to Haliburton with the no bid contracts and the fact that the VP used to be the CIO. Very convenient.

And if Clinton had done all the exact same things for all the exact same reasons, the Republicans would have dragged his body through the streets of DC.

Then there's the business about record deficits all the while tagging the democrats as tax and spend liberals. Please.

I am really at a loss how anyone can possible support anymore of this.

08/27/2008 07:40:50 PM · #106
Originally posted by scarbrd:


Do you honestly believe that if anyone else had been president beside GW Bush (Republican or Democrat) that they would have chosen to invade Iraq?

Do you not believe the several eye witness accounts that GW twisted the information to justify the invasion and that any other responsible human would have been a bit more prudent before sending our soldiers to certain death? He was looking for reason to invade Iraq regardless of the facts.

What about the treasonous acts by the vice president and his cronies in outing a CIA operative to discredit anyone who tried to challenge the "facts" being presented to the US by their president? Not to mention the promise of the president to root out anyone involved and hold them accountable. Then, the only person convicted on the matter had his sentence commuted by GW? And don't forget the ancillary benefit to Haliburton with the no bid contracts and the fact that the VP used to be the CIO. Very convenient.

And if Clinton had done all the exact same things for all the exact same reasons, the Republicans would have dragged his body through the streets of DC.

Then there's the business about record deficits all the while tagging the democrats as tax and spend liberals. Please.

I am really at a loss how anyone can possible support anymore of this.


Well its pretty much a neck and neck tie at the moment so I guess I've got some company.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 19:41:11.
08/27/2008 07:54:50 PM · #107
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

[quote=Eyesup] and to further weed it out how many attacks have been carryed out on american soil that weren't by a group at one point funded by the US government?


1920
Sept. 16, New York City: TNT bomb planted in unattended horse-drawn wagon exploded on Wall Street opposite House of Morgan, killing 35 people and injuring hundreds more. Bolshevist or anarchist terrorists believed responsible, but crime never solved.

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is whats left when we take out stuff not on the continental US

And if we take out "Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected" (remember that the Talliban was once funded by the Us government) that leaves 2 incidents.

And further if we take out attacks not fueled in retaliation to the USA's... interesting (at times) foreign policy) we are left with....

ETA yes I know that 'technically' any embassy counts as the territory of the country it represents

My point is has any extra security come from Bush's actions? doubtful at best. and in fact if we place back in the embassy attacks at US soil, then things really havn't gotten any safer at all have they?

(again, just debating and learning... I am by no means an expert)

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 19:59:18.
08/27/2008 08:19:56 PM · #108
Originally posted by Eyesup:



My point is has any extra security come from Bush's actions? doubtful at best. and in fact if we place back in the embassy attacks at US soil, then things really havn't gotten any safer at all have they?

(again, just debating and learning... I am by no means an expert)


No I agree with you Bush's big brother tactics are BS and I am happy to see him go.
08/27/2008 08:51:28 PM · #109
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:


Do you honestly believe that if anyone else had been president beside GW Bush (Republican or Democrat) that they would have chosen to invade Iraq?

Do you not believe the several eye witness accounts that GW twisted the information to justify the invasion and that any other responsible human would have been a bit more prudent before sending our soldiers to certain death? He was looking for reason to invade Iraq regardless of the facts.

What about the treasonous acts by the vice president and his cronies in outing a CIA operative to discredit anyone who tried to challenge the "facts" being presented to the US by their president? Not to mention the promise of the president to root out anyone involved and hold them accountable. Then, the only person convicted on the matter had his sentence commuted by GW? And don't forget the ancillary benefit to Haliburton with the no bid contracts and the fact that the VP used to be the CIO. Very convenient.

And if Clinton had done all the exact same things for all the exact same reasons, the Republicans would have dragged his body through the streets of DC.

Then there's the business about record deficits all the while tagging the democrats as tax and spend liberals. Please.

I am really at a loss how anyone can possible support anymore of this.


Well its pretty much a neck and neck tie at the moment so I guess I've got some company.


So you're OK with all the things listed above?

It's close because some people just can't vote for Obama because he's black. Brutal fact, I know. Not saying that about you personally, I get the feeling you are above such nonsense, but you have to admit it is a factor. We'll see how much character we have as a country. We'll see if we can finally put aside our racial past and vote on the issues and the qualities of the candidates and their platforms. We'll see if we can reject the Swiftboaters lies that try to scare people away from Obama. If we do, I'm sure Obama will prevail.
08/27/2008 08:53:49 PM · #110
It was a figure of speech pal.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by David Ey:

Well, I've heard most of California is pretty queer and is likely to fall off into the ocean if it doesn't get flooded first due to global warming.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Nope -- never been to Texas, though I heard most of it is pretty hot. I guess I should have referenced only the states and not the climate ...

Your knowledge of plate tectonics seems lacking. Only a small sliver of of California is on the Pacific Plate -- the vast majority is on the North American Plate -- and the fault moves laterally northwards several millimeters/year; nothing will "fall off" into the ocean.

08/27/2008 08:55:45 PM · #111
Originally posted by karmat:

I'm cynical. I think it is all a matter of perspective.

Candidate A is a Republican. His voting record is "100%" party line.
Republicans say, "He is loyal to his platform."
Democrats say, "He is towing the party line."

Candidate B is a Democrat. His voting record is "100%" party line.
Democrats say, "He is loyal to his platform."
Republicans say, "He is towing the party line."

Candidate C is a Republican. He voting record is variable.
Republicans say, "He is a maverick."
Democrats say, "He is wishy washy. You can't trust him.

Candidate D is a Democrat. His voting record is variable.
Democrats say, "He is a maverick."
Republicans say, "He is wishy washy. You can't trust him"

Same old crap.

Different year.

edit - -I misquoted and misinterpreted the quote.


Ain't that the truth. I really wish Obama on his change platform would add disolving the two corrupt parties we have running this country. That would be real change for the better.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 20:56:27.
08/27/2008 09:41:59 PM · #112
Originally posted by David Ey:

It was a figure of speech pal.

Like my description of Texas as a desert ...
08/27/2008 09:44:41 PM · #113
Originally posted by yanko:



Ain't that the truth. I really wish Obama on his change platform would add disolving the two corrupt parties we have running this country. That would be real change for the better.


"A rose by any other name ..."

Go D-Backs! :-D
08/27/2008 09:51:05 PM · #114
Originally posted by dponlyme:

I don't so much worry about our international image. There are a lot of people that will hate/dislike us no matter what we do or how we do it. I feel we must do what's right for our own citizens regardless of our international image.

The more people hate you, the more likely it is they'll attack you. That's why Clinton wanted Bin Laden alive- killing him outright could have turned a popular Muslim figure into a martyr, galvanizing extremists against America and guaranteeing acts of revenge.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.

He didn't cause the hurricane, but he certainly enabled the disaster. "In early 2001, at the start of Mr Bush's presidency, his Government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York." He ignored the report (and wound up dealing with two of the three), dramatically slashed funding to shore up Louisiana's levees, and dropped emergency preparedness plans for the area. In addition, he was warned several days before Katrina struck that the levees would fail, yet feigned total ignorance a week afterward. Everything was diverted to Iraq, which wasn't even a threat. Basically, he put homeland security ahead of the homeland, and he didn't even learn from that experience. I'll pass on four more years of incompetence. :-/
08/27/2008 09:51:06 PM · #115
Originally posted by scarbrd:



It's close because some people just can't vote for Obama because he's black. Brutal fact, I know. Not saying that about you personally, I get the feeling you are above such nonsense, but you have to admit it is a factor. We'll see how much character we have as a country. We'll see if we can finally put aside our racial past and vote on the issues and the qualities of the candidates and their platforms. We'll see if we can reject the Swiftboaters lies that try to scare people away from Obama. If we do, I'm sure Obama will prevail.


I agree there are those who are not voting for Obama b/c he is black, which is reprehensible. I would venture to say that there is a significant number of blacks who are voting for him only because he is black as well, I find this just as wrong. I do hope that his candidacy and what I believe will be his eventual win of the presidency will put a gaping hole in racial divides in this country.
08/27/2008 09:56:46 PM · #116
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I don't so much worry about our international image. There are a lot of people that will hate/dislike us no matter what we do or how we do it. I feel we must do what's right for our own citizens regardless of our international image.

The more people hate you, the more likely it is they'll attack you. That's why Clinton wanted Bin Laden alive- killing him outright could have turned a popular Muslim figure into a martyr, galvanizing extremists against America and guaranteeing acts of revenge.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.

He didn't cause the hurricane, but he certainly enabled the disaster. "In early 2001, at the start of Mr Bush's presidency, his Government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York." He ignored the report (and wound up dealing with two of the three), dramatically slashed funding to shore up Louisiana's levees, and dropped emergency preparedness plans for the area. In addition, he was warned several days before Katrina struck that the levees would fail, yet feigned total ignorance a week afterward. Everything was diverted to Iraq, which wasn't even a threat. Basically, he put homeland security ahead of the homeland, and he didn't even learn from that experience. I'll pass on four more years of incompetence. :-/


How was McCain involved in FEMA and Bush's lack of leadership and decision making?
08/27/2008 11:26:37 PM · #117
Originally posted by scarbrd:



It's close because some people just can't vote for Obama because he's black. Brutal fact, I know.


Well one could easily argue that it's so close because Obama is getting nearly ALL of the support of African Americans. I know they don't outnumber Cacuasians but it's still a large enough demographic to make a big impact in the race. I'm sure if this country had twice the number of elderly people it has now McCain would be in the lead or double the young people and Obama would be way out in front. What does this all say? Are people bigoted or are they just graviating to those they most relate to, like what people do in every other facet of life? Or maybe it's a little of both. Either way I wouldn't exactly call it a brutal fact.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 23:30:16.
08/28/2008 12:42:55 AM · #118
Originally posted by trevytrev:



Big expectations from an individual who hasn't done anything yet to show that he should be associated with the likes of JFK.


Come on!!! He sounds good when giving a speech....surely he is the second coming!

:p
08/28/2008 12:44:25 AM · #119
Originally posted by scalvert:


He didn't cause the hurricane, but he certainly enabled the disaster. "In early 2001, at the start of Mr Bush's presidency, his Government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York." He ignored the report (and wound up dealing with two of the three), dramatically slashed funding to shore up Louisiana's levees, and dropped emergency preparedness plans for the area. In addition, he was warned several days before Katrina struck that the levees would fail, yet feigned total ignorance a week afterward. Everything was diverted to Iraq, which wasn't even a threat. Basically, he put homeland security ahead of the homeland, and he didn't even learn from that experience. I'll pass on four more years of incompetence. :-/


Come now...surely you don't believe those levees weakend to their state..simply since 2001?

Bush is just the scapegoat.
08/28/2008 12:47:04 AM · #120
The one thing I find really funny about Obama and the democrats in general.

"We want to FUNDAMENTALLY change Washington....and the bipartisanship that corrupts it. Which is why you should vote for US instead of them...because we know better."

Now..that is change I can believe in! Getting rid of partisanship...with even greater partisanship. YES WE CAN!
08/28/2008 09:20:51 AM · #121
Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by scalvert:


He didn't cause the hurricane, but he certainly enabled the disaster. "In early 2001, at the start of Mr Bush's presidency, his Government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York." He ignored the report (and wound up dealing with two of the three), dramatically slashed funding to shore up Louisiana's levees, and dropped emergency preparedness plans for the area. In addition, he was warned several days before Katrina struck that the levees would fail, yet feigned total ignorance a week afterward. Everything was diverted to Iraq, which wasn't even a threat. Basically, he put homeland security ahead of the homeland, and he didn't even learn from that experience. I'll pass on four more years of incompetence. :-/


Come now...surely you don't believe those levees weakend to their state..simply since 2001?

Bush is just the scapegoat.


While it's true the levees may not have suddenly become weak on his watch, Bush did ignore the report and cut funding to the Corps of Engineers project that would have shored up the levees. He also stcuk his head in the sand after the disaster, failing to step in when his crony, the head of FEMA, failed to get off the schneid and get relief to the victims.

He is the one who gave the top job at FEMA to an unqualified friend. An appointee, who bungled the federal response in the aftermath of the disaster to an apalling degree.

Of course, according to you, the residents of New Orleans deserved what they got for living there in the first place.
08/28/2008 02:19:10 PM · #122
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:


Do you honestly believe that if anyone else had been president beside GW Bush (Republican or Democrat) that they would have chosen to invade Iraq?

Most Probably Not but it was congress who made it all possible by their vote
//blog.light-of-reason.com/archive/pre-iraq-war-documents-reveal-analysis-accurately-predicted-subsequent-events/

Do you not believe the several eye witness accounts that GW twisted the information to justify the invasion and that any other responsible human would have been a bit more prudent before sending our soldiers to certain death? He was looking for reason to invade Iraq regardless of the facts.

I think that you are most probably right in retrospect but it was congress who voted for the resolution giving him the authority to do it. We were let down by the congress which is supposed to be a check on the executive branch. They failed.

What about the treasonous acts by the vice president and his cronies in outing a CIA operative to discredit anyone who tried to challenge the "facts" being presented to the US by their president? Not to mention the promise of the president to root out anyone involved and hold them accountable. Then, the only person convicted on the matter had his sentence commuted by GW? And don't forget the ancillary benefit to Haliburton with the no bid contracts and the fact that the VP used to be the CIO. Very convenient.

I'm not so sure about the CIA thing. I'm sure there were some not so right things going on behind the scenes however.

And if Clinton had done all the exact same things for all the exact same reasons, the Republicans would have dragged his body through the streets of DC.

Then there's the business about record deficits all the while tagging the democrats as tax and spend liberals. Please.

I am really at a loss how anyone can possible support anymore of this.


Well its pretty much a neck and neck tie at the moment so I guess I've got some company.


So you're OK with all the things listed above?

Well obviously not. My answer was a little sarcastic in nature. As someone else pointed out McCain is not George W Bush and I do not feel that he will just be more of the same even though that is how he is being painted by the democrats. Like I said I'm not in love with McCain necessarily but I do feel that he is his own man.

It's close because some people just can't vote for Obama because he's black. Brutal fact, I know. Not saying that about you personally, I get the feeling you are above such nonsense, but you have to admit it is a factor. We'll see how much character we have as a country. We'll see if we can finally put aside our racial past and vote on the issues and the qualities of the candidates and their platforms. We'll see if we can reject the Swiftboaters lies that try to scare people away from Obama. If we do, I'm sure Obama will prevail.


Some people just can't vote for him because he's not Hillary. Considering it's nearly a dead heat at this point in time I think that racism is less important a factor than one might otherwise believe and don't forget he was UP by ten points not too long ago.

08/28/2008 02:25:07 PM · #123
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by scarbrd:


Do you honestly believe that if anyone else had been president beside GW Bush (Republican or Democrat) that they would have chosen to invade Iraq?

Most Probably Not but it was congress who made it all possible by their vote
//blog.light-of-reason.com/archive/pre-iraq-war-documents-reveal-analysis-accurately-predicted-subsequent-events/

Do you not believe the several eye witness accounts that GW twisted the information to justify the invasion and that any other responsible human would have been a bit more prudent before sending our soldiers to certain death? He was looking for reason to invade Iraq regardless of the facts.

I think that you are most probably right in retrospect but it was congress who voted for the resolution giving him the authority to do it. We were let down by the congress which is supposed to be a check on the executive branch. They failed.

What about the treasonous acts by the vice president and his cronies in outing a CIA operative to discredit anyone who tried to challenge the "facts" being presented to the US by their president? Not to mention the promise of the president to root out anyone involved and hold them accountable. Then, the only person convicted on the matter had his sentence commuted by GW? And don't forget the ancillary benefit to Haliburton with the no bid contracts and the fact that the VP used to be the CIO. Very convenient.

I'm not so sure about the CIA thing. I'm sure there were some not so right things going on behind the scenes however.

And if Clinton had done all the exact same things for all the exact same reasons, the Republicans would have dragged his body through the streets of DC.

Then there's the business about record deficits all the while tagging the democrats as tax and spend liberals. Please.

I am really at a loss how anyone can possible support anymore of this.


Well its pretty much a neck and neck tie at the moment so I guess I've got some company.


So you're OK with all the things listed above?

Well obviously not. My answer was a little sarcastic in nature. As someone else pointed out McCain is not George W Bush and I do not feel that he will just be more of the same even though that is how he is being painted by the democrats. Like I said I'm not in love with McCain necessarily but I do feel that he is his own man.

It's close because some people just can't vote for Obama because he's black. Brutal fact, I know. Not saying that about you personally, I get the feeling you are above such nonsense, but you have to admit it is a factor. We'll see how much character we have as a country. We'll see if we can finally put aside our racial past and vote on the issues and the qualities of the candidates and their platforms. We'll see if we can reject the Swiftboaters lies that try to scare people away from Obama. If we do, I'm sure Obama will prevail.


Some people just can't vote for him because he's not Hillary. Considering it's nearly a dead heat at this point in time I think that racism is less important a factor than one might otherwise believe and don't forget he was UP by ten points not too long ago.


Well back to your original post, I watched all the McCain ads during the DNC Convernetion this week. Not one, not a single one, talked about anything McCain was going to do. They were all negative ads about Obama's readiness.

Negative campainging was something McCain abhored, espeicially what was done to him by Bush when they were running in the primaries. Every negative ad was followed with "I'm John McCain and I approved the message"

And now he says he has a "big surprise" for tonight.

Class act.
08/28/2008 02:29:39 PM · #124
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I don't so much worry about our international image. There are a lot of people that will hate/dislike us no matter what we do or how we do it. I feel we must do what's right for our own citizens regardless of our international image.

The more people hate you, the more likely it is they'll attack you.

The only people attacking us are the muslim extremists and in their eyes we are unredeemable no matter what decisions we make as a country.

That's why Clinton wanted Bin Laden alive- killing him outright could have turned a popular Muslim figure into a martyr, galvanizing extremists against America and guaranteeing acts of revenge.

That makes sense. Hindsight is 20/20. Bet he wishes he had killed him when he had the chance.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As far as Katrina, you sound like as if Bush created the hurricane. Disasters happen and maybe it wasn't dealt with in the best possible way but I feel the state government is more to blame than the federal. They are supposed to be the first responders. They are the ones who should have been better prepared. I seriously doubt Bush caused things to be mishandled.

He didn't cause the hurricane, but he certainly enabled the disaster. "In early 2001, at the start of Mr Bush's presidency, his Government's Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York." He ignored the report (and wound up dealing with two of the three), dramatically slashed funding to shore up Louisiana's levees, and dropped emergency preparedness plans for the area. In addition, he was warned several days before Katrina struck that the levees would fail, yet feigned total ignorance a week afterward. Everything was diverted to Iraq, which wasn't even a threat. Basically, he put homeland security ahead of the homeland, and he didn't even learn from that experience. I'll pass on four more years of incompetence. :-/


It was congress who passed the budget and as is pointed out in the article the proposed numbers changed. They could have decided that (even) more money was needed in the critical areas but they did not... and once again John McCain is not Bush no matter how the dems try to (quite effectively I might add) paint him.

edit to add (even)

Message edited by author 2008-08-28 14:34:15.
08/28/2008 02:33:04 PM · #125
Originally posted by scarbrd:



Well back to your original post, I watched all the McCain ads during the DNC Convernetion this week. Not one, not a single one, talked about anything McCain was going to do. They were all negative ads about Obama's readiness.

Negative campainging was something McCain abhored, espeicially what was done to him by Bush when they were running in the primaries. Every negative ad was followed with "I'm John McCain and I approved the message"

And now he says he has a "big surprise" for tonight.

Class act.


Politics is a dirty business isn't it. Campaigns have been negative on both sides for as long as candidates have complained their opponents campaigns were negative. In the end for both sides they will do whatever it takes to get elected. It's the nature of the beast.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/23/2020 09:35:20 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/23/2020 09:35:20 PM EST.